[Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
Jerry Clough - OSM
sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jan 20 13:13:53 GMT 2011
I note on the Natural England condition statement that they use the phrase
"Residual Waterway", so perhaps we can make use of something like
Jonathan Briggs did a nice article on the ecology of the Montgomery Canal in
British Wildlife a few years ago (BW, 17:401-410, 2006 IIRC).
From: Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thu, 20 January, 2011 12:21:58
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
> I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top
> bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think
> the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.
From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:
And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn
boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to
vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a
stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.)
So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be
something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it
to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :)
View this message in context:
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB